[Editor's note: the following is a reply by Elias Davidsson to a friendly note he received raising an interesting point about evidence (or its absence) and 9/11]

Thank you for your thoughtful observations. I will only address the last point of your letter, namely the argument that the lack of evidence [of Muslims on the 9/11 planes] is not evidence that they were not on these planes. This argument has been sometimes leveled at my reasoning.

In the theory of logic this argument is correct: One cannot prove a negative. Thus, I cannot prove the inexistence of God. However, we are not dealing with formal logic but with a specific criminal case. In that particular case, a government is accusing 19 named individuals of mass murder without presenting even the slightest evidence of their guilt. I insist on "the slightest" because it is not "flimsy" evidence the US government has produced. It has produced no evidence at all. Now, it is not so that the US government cannot know who boarded the planes or whether anyone boarded these four planes. It surely knows exactly what went on at the airports because of the wealth of documents and witnesses to which it has access. So, the most reasonable inference to be drawn from the lack of evidence is that the US government cannot produce this evidence without revealing that it is lying. If its story were true, the release of this evidence would do no more than simply corroborate what the government has actually said. The US government is in addition the party that has the most incentive to produce all incriminating evidence it can lay its hands on in order to justify its post-9/11 domestic and foreign policies, including the PATRIOT Act and the attack on Afghanistan. Corroborating the official account by the release of this specific evidence would - if the official account were true - dispel popular suspicions and deal a deadly blow to the 9/11 truth movement. The failure of doing so can therefore only be explained by the inability to produce this evidence, or in other words, the non-existence of this evidence. To stick to arguments derived from formal logic in order to downplay the importance of the lack of evidence, is both immoral and irresponsible. It is immoral because accusing persons of mass murder without adducing their culpability constitutes an outrageous defamation. It is irresponsible because to accuse innocents of mass murder ensures that the real perpetrators remain free to commit further mass murders. Prudence alone justifies or even requires of us to call the bluff of the government, namely its implied claims that it possesses evidence regarding the boarding of the 19 hijackers.

I submit that the current legal status of the 19 alleged hijackers is that of "disappeared persons" probably murdered by the US authorities. This is an objective designation based on the fact that the US authorities have not proved that these people committed the crime of 9/11 while claiming that they boarded those four aircraft. As their mortal remains have not been positively identified, we are entitled to know what the US government has done with them. I am aware that the above reasoning is too refined for use in street campaigning, where the story of the collapse of WTC nr. 7, or the lack of air force defenses, may convince more people that the government is hiding the truth. I wish however to make it absolutely clear to all 9/11 truthers that any attempt to give legitimacy to those who claim that Muslims killed 3,000 people on 9/11 - for example by endorsing the Air Force stand-down theory - should be fought as a legal offense against the dignity of 19 innocent people who no one has found guilty of mass murder. If no Muslim hijackers were involved, we must reject the entire "hijacked airliners" legend, including the allegations that civilian airplanes were flown by human beings onto the known landmarks on 9/11. I submit that the accusations against the 19 "hijackers" were taken at face value ONLY because they were presented as Muslims (although they reportedly indulged in alcohol, prostitutes and gambling, not the hallmark of devout Muslims). Another point is that I consider it part of our moral duty to uphold the right to the truth of the victims and society as a whole. This right is recognized by the United Nations and by human rights tribunals.

Finally, I propose to compare the 9/11 Legend with the Blood Libel affixed on Jews in the Middle Ages. According to that Blood Label, Jews would slaughter a Christian child in order to drink his blood for the Easter festivities. This Blood Libel led to pogroms against Jews. The Blood Libel that I call the 9/11 Legend has already cost the lives of over a million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. The foundation of this Blood Libel is the equally contrived claim that 19 Muslims boarded the four planes of 9/11, hijacked those planes and flew them on the known landmarks. Unless we are presented with incontrovertible evidence that Jews slaughter a Christian child before Easter, or that 19 Muslims boarded the four aircraft on 9/11, we have no reason to believe either legend.

I do not know what happened to the 19 "hijackers" But regarding the passengers and crew, I venture that they boarded some unidentified aircraft and were then told that they were under martial law and should obey orders, namely to participate in the military hijacking exercises. They were told to play the role of hijacked passengers by calling their families and others and speak according to a preplanned script. By these calls, the 9/11 legend was established. Afterwards these passengers and crew were disposed of at some unknown location. While this theory is truly sinister, it is in my opinion quite plausible. This theory does not require that the perps used morphing technology to fake the calls, or that the passengers, crew and their families engaged in lies. This theory could fit the lack of proper identification of the crashed planes (or even their inexistence). The theory solves many mysteries and appears as the simplest explanation of what occurred. Obviously, this is only a theory and is therefore subject to debate.

With my kind greetings,